Technology Lab —

Microsoft dodges class action in WGA lawsuit

After more than three years, a federal judge has let Microsoft avoid a class …

A lawsuit that accused Microsoft of misleading consumers to download and install an update for Windows Genuine Advantage (WGA) under the guise that it was critical security update will go forward, but not as a class action. A federal judge has refused to certify the lawsuit as a class action, which would have meant anyone who owned a Windows XP PC in mid-2006 could join the case without having to hire an attorney. As Windows XP was easily the most popular operating system at the time, the move means Redmond has managed to avoid hundreds of millions in potential damages. Microsoft has until February 12, 2010 to submit its expense list to the court.

The issue began more than three years ago when it was revealed that beta versions of WGA "phone home" once every day, though later Redmond said the daily checks were there just because the software was in beta and confirmed that more recent versions communicate with the company approximately once every 90 days. Nevertheless, privacy advocates were outraged, and in June 2006, after Microsoft began pushing WGA to Windows XP users via Windows Update as a "high priority" update, a suit was filed alleging that WGA was spyware. It demanded compensatory damages ("either actual damages or one hundred thousand dollars per violation, whichever is greater"), injunctive relief, and a requirement for Microsoft to fully disclose WGA's "potential security and other risks" to the public. Furthermore, the suit wanted Microsoft to produce a tool that could easily remove WGA from any Windows PC.

Microsoft uses WGA to detect pirated copies of Windows and inform the user that the software is counterfeit, nagging them with messages and eventually locking down. In Windows 7, Microsoft rebranded WGA to Windows Activation Technologies (WAT), saying that the technology used in Windows Vista and Windows 7 is fundamentally different from that used with Windows XP. Future versions of updates of the technology for Windows Vista will also be referred to as WAT. Microsoft still plans to keep WGA updates coming for Windows XP.

It demanded compensatory damages ("either actual damages or one hundred thousand dollars per violation, whichever is greater"), injunctive relief, and a requirement for Microsoft to fully disclose WGA's "potential security and other risks" to the public.

Yeah, well I demand that MS build me a giant pyramid surrounded by naked, pickle-throwing women. Doesn't mean its ever going to happen, or that its reasonable.

It demanded compensatory damages ("either actual damages or one hundred thousand dollars per violation, whichever is greater"), injunctive relief, and a requirement for Microsoft to fully disclose WGA's "potential security and other risks" to the public.

Excuse me but: Are they fucking insane?!? How about we keep compensation within an earthly realm? I know it's standard practice to ask for more than what you want in a case and settle for a fraction of that amount but this is just ri-god-damn-diculous.

I could see a lawsuit if WGA had hosed your legally liscensed computer especially in a business setting, but $100k per incident (presumably the daily 'phone home' in this case?) is nutso land and ought to be grounds for contempt of court for even asking it.

OTOH, Ars has once again left out the best part of the story:

quote:

[ Judge ] Jones also said that Microsoft could demand compensation for the money it spent contesting the class-action charges, even though the plaintiffs withdrew most of those allegations prior to trial.

Originally posted by severusx:Who would actually join the class action? Isn't that tantamount to admitting that you were using a pirate copy of Windows? Not that I think that MS would/could do anything retaliatory, but still...

There were numerous XP users who had been hit by WGA that did have legitimate copies of Windows. The issue is weather or not they should be compensated for the fact that the were forced to either upgrade their PC's, OS's or buy a licensing key to make their already legal copy legal again. Most people don't understand it and/or wanna fight it, so if Microsoft says "This is pirated and illegal" then they jump and say "Oh Noes! I have to do something!", while remaining completely unaware that they are in fact legitimate users.

It demanded compensatory damages ("either actual damages or one hundred thousand dollars per violation, whichever is greater"), injunctive relief, and a requirement for Microsoft to fully disclose WGA's "potential security and other risks" to the public.

Yeah, well I demand that MS build me a giant pyramid surrounded by naked, pickle-throwing women. Doesn't mean its ever going to happen, or that its reasonable.

Especially since my period request is ahead of yours in the line and I intend to sue them once it's done for a variety of structural flaws.

I had several issues with WGA after doing hardware upgrades. The only cost to me was time and it was 15 minutes each time; 3 total, where I had to call customer support, read a key, and they provided me a new key. Not $100k per incident cost to me.

Originally posted by severusx:Who would actually join the class action? Isn't that tantamount to admitting that you were using a pirate copy of Windows? Not that I think that MS would/could do anything retaliatory, but still...

There were numerous XP users who had been hit by WGA that did have legitimate copies of Windows. The issue is weather or not they should be compensated for the fact that the were forced to either upgrade their PC's, OS's or buy a licensing key to make their already legal copy legal again. Most people don't understand it and/or wanna fight it, so if Microsoft says "This is pirated and illegal" then they jump and say "Oh Noes! I have to do something!", while remaining completely unaware that they are in fact legitimate users.

Links to back that up? The only users I can imagine that would be impacted by false-positives might be users that have a volume license key that was compromised or distributed online. In which case MS usually replaces the key unless the user violated the EULA for the software.

I personally switched to Linux when activation was introduced with XP (actually I stuck with win98, and started dual booting, but hey! remote activation was the reason), and I see WGA as the natural extension of that, so, sucks to you that have stuck with MS.Sucks to you!

OTOH, I worked for a hardware vendor/repair shop, and I can say that the way Microsoft introduced WGA was pure fraud on a number of counts, first it was promoted as an optional registration(they even had a sweepstakes) This was done to warm up the OEM's without ever telling what it did. Then it was required to get certain OS add ons or upgrades (Probably the only honest phase). Finally it was pushed out through windows update masquerading as a high priority security update.

And, many of my customers had problems, not only pirates. Particularly painful was a certain local government whose previous tech consultant always used the same volume-license image to reinstall XP (even though there was an OEM sticker on every box).

I'd love to see MS lose this one, because of the slimeball tactics they used to push WGA on their customers.

Originally posted by severusx:Who would actually join the class action? Isn't that tantamount to admitting that you were using a pirate copy of Windows? Not that I think that MS would/could do anything retaliatory, but still...

the complaint is that WGA violates the privacy of legitimate customers by phoning home, and by being masqueraded as a "security update"

Pirates didn't install WGA in the first place, or installed a cracked copy of WGA that did not phone home. Generally only legitimate customers had this issue, and the issue is a matter of privacy and spyware (they are demanding that MS disclose EXACTLY what data is being sent over to MS from computers)

I had the WGA problem on my other laptop. The OS (XP PRO) installed was the one that came on the media that the laptop shipped with. It was a pain in the arse to get it working again without the "This version of windows is counterfeit" Drivel. 15 mins on the phone with microsoft as stated by a poster above is phenomenal. My calls were more like 30 mins, with 20 of those minutes consisting of me trying to get the indian person on the phone to pronounce the words more clearly so I could figure out what the hell they were saying...

Is that headache worth $100,000...well I could use the money...but no. Still I'd like to know what's being transferred by wga and I'd like to know how the hell my retail bought laptop ever got flagged as "Pirated" in the first place.

Once they drop official support for XP, what's stopping them from disabling the part of the WGA/WAT database that contains the info for the XP licenses, or more likely "upgrading" to another technology and not providing a patch for XP users to keep going?

If you pay for a software license, unless it specifically says it's only good for a specific period of time, you should be able to use the software for as long as you want.

I had several computers at work trip the WGA killswitch. They all had legit licenses that I bought and broke the seals on.

WGA has some pathological behavior. It has a secret list of rules your computer must pass or it will say that the PC can't contact MS to (re)activate. When it provably can contact MS, it will say that activation failed because it can't contact them. One rule I do know is that if your computer's time doesn't match Microsoft's clock, you can't activate. If your time moves backwards according to WGA's stored tracking log, you're deactivated. We had a PC where the watch batteries socket was defective and after a year the plastic couldn't hold the battery in contact anymore. WGA deactivated the computer and then refused to allow us to activate it again. The PC worked fine, we bought XP legitimately and the loss of the clock battery wouldn't have mattered to us. The PC picked up time from the server on login anyway. I finally soldered a new battery socket in, but by that time MS had blacklisted the COA. WTF? We certainly weren't bootlegging anything! We bought it!

After XP WGA, MS released a new set of COA codes that can only install from a newer CD with WGA. On one computer XP required activation on 1st boot, with no grace period at all! It would pass activation, but afterwards instead of getting the windows desktop I was force logged off. When I tried to log in -boom- you must activate. After the third try (with reboots looking for anything that might be on the secret killswitch list) MS refused to activate it at all. When I called support they admitted the copy was legit, but told me to re-buy because they ban the COA if you activate three times in a day. I bought that copy of XP from Newegg. It's packaging was just the same as all the others, and MS phone techs admitted it was valid. They just wouldn't disclose why activation/WGA failed every time and wouldn't help with it. As you might imagine that soured my opinion of WGA and activation requiring software.

Originally posted by severusx:Who would actually join the class action? Isn't that tantamount to admitting that you were using a pirate copy of Windows? Not that I think that MS would/could do anything retaliatory, but still...

Researchers in the field with no internet connection trying to collect data for a study.

microsoft has [in my case] accomplished it's goalbut perhaps not the way they intendedI'll fix computers for friends and family BUTI will no longer reinstall an OS with a questionable provenance.I don't need toUbuntu 7.04 was my first total linux success.Now when some one has "lost their disk"they can buy a new one or I will install a free OS

my unsafe surfing brother inlaw has not been back with a broken OS since 8.04my wife prefers 8.04 to vista on her lap topthose old computers in the basement just workbut their original 2K or ME is long gone

> I'd love to see MS lose this one, because of the slimeball tactics they used to push WGA on their customers.

you forget that you don't own the software you think you own, just the right to use it, and usually within the restrictions you accept when you install it there is a clause stating the vendor reserves the right to change those restrictions as and when they feel like. This is a standard practice across software, hardware, services, products, industries, etc. etc.

so, if Microsoft choose to pick new rules regarding the licensing of its product it is perfectly legal for it to do so. If it that means its software is phoning home, that's okay too, as long as no personal information is being stored, or operated on by Microsoft, their affiliates, or partners.

Now, that's not to say we think it's fair, or transparent, or good business practice. They are entitled to though. Would i go so far as stating they are slime ball tactics? No, they are common business practices that likely your favourite companies probably do too, do you want to see them dragged through the courts also.

The whole class action smells of some user that likely doesn't even use windows xp, that bears a grudge against microsoft, and wants to see them embarrassed in the courts. I'm glad to see common sense has prevailed.

Originally posted by severusx:Who would actually join the class action? Isn't that tantamount to admitting that you were using a pirate copy of Windows? Not that I think that MS would/could do anything retaliatory, but still...

There were numerous XP users who had been hit by WGA that did have legitimate copies of Windows. The issue is weather or not they should be compensated for the fact that the were forced to either upgrade their PC's, OS's or buy a licensing key to make their already legal copy legal again. Most people don't understand it and/or wanna fight it, so if Microsoft says "This is pirated and illegal" then they jump and say "Oh Noes! I have to do something!", while remaining completely unaware that they are in fact legitimate users.

Links to back that up? The only users I can imagine that would be impacted by false-positives might be users that have a volume license key that was compromised or distributed online. In which case MS usually replaces the key unless the user violated the EULA for the software.

I never intended to imply that Microsoft themselves intentionally left people hanging; and I apologize if that's how it sounded. I merely meant to say that there are a lot of people that aren't exactly sure what to do when that happens so then move on and end up paying for it. There are a lot of Mom's, Dad's, Grandparents and other assorted everyday users that don't read the type of news we do, that don't understand how these things work or that are two scared they will be arrested by the EULA Police... so they really don't know where or how to begin resolving these issues.

Originally posted by severusx:Who would actually join the class action? Isn't that tantamount to admitting that you were using a pirate copy of Windows? Not that I think that MS would/could do anything retaliatory, but still...

There were numerous XP users who had been hit by WGA that did have legitimate copies of Windows. The issue is weather or not they should be compensated for the fact that the were forced to either upgrade their PC's, OS's or buy a licensing key to make their already legal copy legal again. Most people don't understand it and/or wanna fight it, so if Microsoft says "This is pirated and illegal" then they jump and say "Oh Noes! I have to do something!", while remaining completely unaware that they are in fact legitimate users.

Links to back that up? The only users I can imagine that would be impacted by false-positives might be users that have a volume license key that was compromised or distributed online. In which case MS usually replaces the key unless the user violated the EULA for the software.

I never intended to imply that Microsoft themselves intentionally left people hanging; and I apologize if that's how it sounded. I merely meant to say that there are a lot of people that aren't exactly sure what to do when that happens so then move on and end up paying for it. There are a lot of Mom's, Dad's, Grandparents and other assorted everyday users that don't read the type of news we do, that don't understand how these things work or that are two scared they will be arrested by the EULA Police... so they really don't know where or how to begin resolving these issues.

This comment was edited by Povno on January 22, 2010 13:17

From the first article:

quote:

Last summer Microsoft admitted that over 20% of WGA failures were caused by something other than key piracy, that is, piracy involving either a product key generator or use of a volume licensing key. The company would not reveal the exact nature of these results, other than to say that a portion of them stemmed from unauthorized use of OEM keys on non-OEM hardware (i.e., someone using a Dell copy of XP on a non-Dell machine). At the time, Microsoft refused to comment on the rate of pure false positives, that is, the rate of verifiably incorrect identifications of pirated software.

So what I supposed earlier is probably true. Users that were notified by WGA were not necessarily "pirates" but were using the software in a way that did not conform to the original license (i.e. transferring an OEM license to a new computer). I'm not saying the software is without fault, but I can't stand the trolling that goes on sometimes about "M$" and the people who just blindly blast them just for the sake of that. I hope you can appreciate that.